DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A in the reply filed on August 31, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that unity of invention is not missing between the claims of the species. This is not found persuasive because the examiner maintains that a prima facie obviousness of combining O'Callaghan (US20220248946) with Hasegawa (US20150222856) as detailed in the requirement from restriction meets the requirement for a unity of invention restriction.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-7, 14-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the term “the first shielding window” in line 15 is unclear. It is not clear if the applicant is introducing a new element or if this window is the same as the previously introduced “first transparent shielding window.” For the purpose of examination, this element will be interpreted as the same as the “first transparent shielding window” as is believed was the applicant’s intent.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first shielding window" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
All claims not specifically rejected are rejected based on their dependence upon Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-7, 14-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O'Callaghan (US 2022/0248946 A1, hereinafter "O'Callaghan") in view of Hasegawa et al. (US 2015/0222856 A1, hereinafter "Hasegawa").
Regarding Claim 1, O'Callaghan discloses a dental handpiece with a handle (Figure 2, 9) extending along an axis and presenting a first end adapted to be connected to a dental unit and a second free end axially opposite to the first end (as seen in Figure 2), a housing (described in [0104] but not specifically labeled]) rigidly connected to the second free end of the handle and comprising: an optical emission source (5) represented by at least one first light-emitting diode (Figure 9a, 42) connected to an electric power supply (via power lines 15), a first optical sensor (Figure 9a, 37) adapted to be connected to visualization devices, a first transparent shielding window (44, described in [0044] as part of the housing) adapted to protect the first optical sensor, a first aperture (Figure 15c, vents 100 or Figure 15d, holes 101) adapted for supplying compressed air to the first transparent shielding window, the first aperture being connected to the means for supplying compressed air on the first shielding window, a first diffuser (outer lens 44 also serves as a diffuser and is located in the aperture as described in [0331]) is located in the first aperture, the first diffuser is adapted to generate an air jet forming an air curtain in front of the first transparent shielding window (described in [0332]).
O’Callahan discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but does not disclose a second light emitting diode different from the first light emitting diode that further comprises a second optical sensor, a second transparent shielding window, a second aperture and a second diffuser.
In the same art of dental handpieces, Hasegawa discloses multiple light-emitting diodes (Figure 9, 24). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to duplicate the structure of O'Callaghan with multiple light-emitting diodes as is taught by Hasegawa in order to provide a device that can visualize a larger realm of area at one time.
Additionally, as O’Callahan as modified by Hasegawa would have multiple light-emitting diodes (as is taught by Hasegawa), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to duplicate the optical sensor, shielding window, aperture, and diffuser of O’Callahan, as such modification would merely involve the duplication of parts previously disclosed in the art and has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144 (VI)(B)).
Regarding Claim 4, O’Callahan in view of Hasegawa discloses the invention of Claim 1, and O’Callahan as modified by Hasegawa to have multiple light-emitting diodes discloses that each of the first diffuser and the second diffuser would be located at a working end of the housing (as seen in Figures 1-9a), and would be adapted to direct the air jet away from the working end of the housing along the axis of the handle (as seen in Figures 10-14, the
outer lens can be directed in many directions including toward the handle as seen in Figure 12,
which would direct the air jet away from the working end of the handle).
Regarding Claim 5, O’Callahan in view of Hasegawa discloses the invention of Claim 4, and O’Callahan discloses a protrusion (protrusion is visualizer 3 seen in Figures 1a and 1b)
located at the working end of the housing, and the protrusion has a surface shape which turns the air jet outgoing from the respective diffuser in a first angle comprised in a first interval of from 120° to 140° (as seen in Figures 1a-1b and 10-14, visualizer is rotatable in a range including 120° as seen in Figure 12).
Regarding Claims 6, 14, and 15, O’Callahan in view of Hasegawa discloses the invention of Claims 1, 4, and 5 respectively, and further discloses that O’Callahan as modified by Hasegawa has multiple light-emitting diodes with multiple diffusers where each of the first diffuser and the second diffuser is oriented perpendicularly to the handle (as seen in Figure 11 where the image sensor/diffuser is rotated to 45 degrees), each diffuser among the first diffuser and the second diffuser is adapted to direct the air jet sideways from the handle (as would be the case when the diffuser is rotated to 45 degrees), the housing comprises a protrusion located from the working end (visualizer 3 as seen in Figures 1a and 1b), and the protrusion has a surface shape which turns the air jet outgoing from the respective diffuser by a first angle comprised in a first interval in a range of from 120° to 140° (as seen in Figures 1a-1b and 10-14, visualizer is rotatable in a range including 120° as seen in Figure 12).
Claims 7, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O'Callaghan in view of Hasegawa in further view of Poll et al. (US 2008/0319266 A1, hereinafter "Poll").
Regarding Claims 7 and 18-20, O’Callahan in view of Hasegawa discloses the invention of Claims 1, and 4-6 respectively, and further discloses that O’Callahan as modified by Hasegawa has multiple light-emitting diodes with multiple diffusers, but does not disclose that the first diffuser and the second diffuser are adapted to generate the air jet with an outflow speed in a range of from 6 m/s to 50 m/s, and the outflow speed forms a second angle with a plane of the transparent shielding window corresponding to each of the first diffuser and the second diffuser, the second angle being comprised in a second interval in a range of from 0° to 15°.
In the similar art of surgical scopes (handpieces), Poll teaches a gas flow state that delivers a flow of gas across a lens at a flow rate of 6 m/s to 50 m/s ([0090]), and the outflow speed forms a second angle with a plane of the transparent shielding window, the second angle being in a second range of from 0° to 15°. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of O'Callaghan in view of Hasegawa with a flow rate as taught by Poll in order to provide a flow rate adequate to keep the window clean during use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE L NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5368. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9-5 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen can be reached at 571-270-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTINE L NELSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3772 /EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
